Salloum & Salloum - [2022] FedCFamC2F 250

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Salloum & Salloum [2022] FedCFamC2F 250

File number(s): DGC 4093 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE BURCHARDT

Date of judgment: 15 March 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Consideration pursuant to s 45A of the Family Law Act of father’s application for parenting orders – where father completely denies all allegations of family violence – where children refusing to spend time with father even on supervised basis – where elder child clearly perceiving himself to have been assaulted by father despite father’s denials – where police evidence supporting mother’s allegations of violence – where family therapy sought by father never likely to assist – orders made as sought by mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited & others [2008] FCAFC 60

Spencer & The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 55

Date of last submission/s: 3 March 2022

Date of hearing: 3 March 2022

Place: Dandenong

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms Opie

Solicitor for the Applicant: Hutchinson Legal

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Wilkinson

Solicitor for the Respondent: Wilkinson And Associates

Advocate for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Hamilton-Green

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Creative Family Law Solutions
ORDERS

DGC 4093 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR SALLOUM

Applicant

AND:
MS SALLOUM

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BURCHARDT

DATE OF ORDER:

15 MARCH 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother has sole parental responsibility for the children X born in 2008 and Y born in 2015.
2.The children live with their Mother.
3.The Mother and Father communicate all important information regarding the children directly between them by the communication platform AppClose, or an equivalent, in a respectful and child focused manner.
4.The Mother notify the Father through AppClose (or equivalent) as soon as practical, of any significant medical illness or injury involving the children.
5.The Father may provide the children with cards & or gifts to a postal address provided by the Mother through AppClose (or equivalent).
6.The Mother assess such correspondence and gifts as to whether they are child focused and age appropriate, and if they are not, then the Mother to be at liberty to return such items to him.
7.The mother be authorised and permitted to apply for Australian passports for X born in 2008 and Y born in 2015 (“the children”) without the consent of the Respondent Father.
8.The children be permitted to depart the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.The Mother and Father will be restrained from:
(a)Discussing any parenting matters in the presence or hearing of the children;
(b)Exposing the children to any negative comment regarding the other parent or any member of their family;
(c)Exposing the children to any argument or conflict between them;
(d)Exposing the children to anyone adversely affected by alcohol or…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Salloum & Salloum

Details

AGLC: Salloum & Salloum [2022] FedCFamC2F 250
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a parenting application brought by the father seeking parenting orders. The mother opposed the father's application and sought sole parental responsibility for the two children, X and Y, born in 2008 and 2015 respectively. The father's application was dismissed by the court for lack of reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the father completely denied any violence against the mother and the children, took no responsibility for the attitude the children had developed towards him, and blamed the mother entirely for brainwashing the children. The children had displayed deeply concerning antipathy towards their father, particularly the elder child, X, who believed he was assaulted by the father. The father's blanket denial was extremely improbable in light of contemporaneous police reports. The court found that the father had no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting his case within the meaning of section 45A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), as explained by the High Court in Spencer. The welfare of the children was the paramount consideration, and in the face of these matters, the court found that the father's application should be summarily dismissed. The court found that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the children and that there should be no order for time with the father.

Orders